Why would you want to dump weight?

[-hh]

Doesnt make any sense what so ever, not everyone found on the bottom is dead because they didnt dump weights - thats a drastic conclusion to make.

True, but the odds of survival of any "problem" rapidly approach zero when you can't get to the surface.

If you ditch weights as well as DCS you have the far more serious and probably fatal problems associated with air embolism to deal with. DCS is NOT the major concern dumping weight.

Ditching is very much admittedly a last choice option. But it still comes down to basic choices. Which is the least bad option:

Having a heart attack while negative and go OOA on the bottom?

-or-

Have a heart attack, ditch the belt and maybe suffer a DCS or EAG too, but be at the surface, with an air supply and closer proximity to your evacuation point and external aid?

YMMV on the specifics of the numbers, but a 2% chance of survival is always better than a 0% chance of survival.


-hh

 

[jaak]

Just a little correction. With an unconcious diver you ascend either on your OR on the victims BC. So it's up to you. If you ask me its better to ascend with your own cause you manage it more efficiently.

 

[String]

Just a little correction. With an unconcious diver you ascend either on your OR on the victims BC. So it's up to you. If you ask me its better to ascend with your own cause you manage it more efficiently

The other school of thought is to ascend on the victims, that way they are positively buoyant and if for any reason you lose grip on them they'll go to the surface not down. The theory there is you can soon adjust your own buoyancy in that even so as not to plummet or shoot up.

 

[H2Andy]

yes, i would prefer to make the victim slightly positive and head up with them,
as string said, in case i lost contact with them -- that way they'll end up on the surface.

 

[ArcticDiver]

True, but the odds of survival of any "problem" rapidly approach zero when you can't get to the surface.




Ditching is very much admittedly a last choice option. But it still comes down to basic choices. Which is the least bad option:

Having a heart attack while negative and go OOA on the bottom?

-or-

Have a heart attack, ditch the belt and maybe suffer a DCS or EAG too, but be at the surface, with an air supply and closer proximity to your evacuation point and external aid?

YMMV on the specifics of the numbers, but a 2% chance of survival is always better than a 0% chance of survival.


-hh

Precisely why I've posted as I have. Instead of blaming the person who is in the emergency by saying: Gee, you shouldn't have weighted yourself that way!"; we say: "OK here we are in an emergency that brings certain death so lets' shed weights and improve my odds."

I posted about the one situation where I thought I'd have to shed weight. Fortunately the down current let me go. But, if it hadn't, thanks to good training and mentally rehearsing procedures I would have been able to at least give myself a chance of survival vs. no chance at all.

So, in my mind that is exactly why the certifying agencies include weight shedding in their curriculums. Note: I said "shedding" instead of "dumping". That makes it more clear this isn't a panic all-or-nothing action. It is a calculated move to get needed positive bouyancy to overcome an emergency.

 

[String]

Its a calculated move that is in the modern days irrelevent. It serves no purpose and is never the best solution for a problem given so many other methods.

Address the root cause - weight yourself properly. Then you will never need to ditch.

 

[nessum]

And, I didn't say all, but it is a large portion. And I'm not making this up. These are the stats (yeah yeah.... stats can be whatever you want them to be... *rolls eyes*) that the hyperbaric doctor reported to us in a lecture earlier this week. He was very adament about this very point.
The primary reason that these people aren't properly weighted in the first place in this region is because they are warm water divers (that aren't trained/experienced with the conditions we dive in & gear that we use) that are grossly over-weighted for the amount of lift that their BCD's are capable of.

 

[Scuba_Vixen]

And, I didn't say all, but it is a large portion. And I'm not making this up. These are the stats (yeah yeah.... stats can be whatever you want them to be... *rolls eyes*) that the hyperbaric doctor reported to us in a lecture earlier this week. He was very adament about this very point.
The primary reason that these people aren't properly weighted in the first place in this region is because they are warm water divers (that aren't trained/experienced with the conditions we dive in & gear that we use) that are grossly over-weighted for the amount of lift that their BCD's are capable of.

From the way you word that, it sounds as if they are not actually overweighted, but "under bcd'd.

 

[String]

From the way you word that, it sounds as if they are not actually overweighted, but "under bcd'd.

Not quite. BCD size (ie fit) usually governs its maximum lift capacity too, smaller size BCs tend to have smaller lift capacity. Someone wearing the correct BC for their size can still be overweighted - No BC on the planet can cope with an infinate amount of weight.

People are forgetting simple weight checks, over here for example its neutral with a near empty cylinder at 6m, other agencies teach something fairly similar. You dont NEED any more weight than that for any task. If you can be neutral at the shallowest and lightest part of your dive then thats it. Possibly if its really cold stick on an extra kilo or 2 of lead for more air in the drysuit but thats a minor point.

Again people should be addressing the root cause - weighting issues as opposed to inventing a dangerous solution to a problem that shouldnt exist (ie weight jettison).

 

[Kim]

So I suppose that the main reason for dumping SOME weight is because you're overweighted to start with!